Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[Keks]

Why only complain in stead of actively thinking about new possible solutions, server/client side, a server module, dedicated carrier servers, I don't know, something? No, mostly I read is complaint after complaint after complaint. :)

 

Mostly because we are not the devs, so we are not the ones in charge of finding a software solution. All we can do is point it out.

 

Also there is no if since with the current implementation it WILL divide.

[dawgie79]

Maybe something like a bundle with the F/A-18C, like with the Normandy map along with WWII assets?

[Keks]

Maybe something like a bundle with the F/A-18C, like with the Normandy map along with WWII assets?

 

No.

Have a multiplayer pve scenario with a carrier based strike group and lets say some f16s.

 

The F16s would now have to also buy the carrier DLC, without even being able to land on it or use it in any way.

[NineLine]

Wow, you guys were busy while I was sawing logs.

 

Just a friendly reminder, you can share opinions of disappointment or dissatisfaction all you want, that is fair, and we want to hear both sides, but if you break the forums rules, insult us, other users, or use foul language, etc, you will be warned and/or suspended.

 

Keep it friendly and within the rules.

[dawgie79]

 

This outcome was obvious, predicable, and inevitable. The fact that the whole idea wasn't nixed from the get-go sends a rather worrying message as far as the corporate governance (and indeed future) of ED goes.

What worrying message would that be according to you?

[Wizard_03]

Don't care.

 

Other bottom line is that while I would like to have better ATC and maybe even some carrier action, I don't want my having it keeping me away from those who don't (or vice versa), and between the two, being able to play with others is vastly more important than carrier animations I won't even look at while fiddling with knobs. One involves actually playing the game, not just passively gazing at the scenery. One lets me talk more people into reckless expenditures and the other does not.

 

And really, there is no good reason why there should be a conflict between the two to begin with.

 

 

There's no “if” about it — it has already happened, and it is already hurting future sales and dividing the community before it the actual sales have even begun.

 

This outcome was obvious, predicable, and inevitable. The fact that the whole idea wasn't nixed from the get-go sends a rather worrying message as far as the corporate governance (and indeed future) of ED goes.

 

I don’t feel the same way. I don’t buy things based on other people’s decisions, if I want it and they don’t then; tough I don’t get to play with them anymore.

[dawgie79]

No.

Have a multiplayer pve scenario with a carrier based strike group and lets say some f16s.

 

The F16s would now have to also buy the carrier DLC, without even being able to land on it or use it in any way.

Yes, well, than it'll be like I said; a new diff. in the online servers. Just can't have it all, don't know why people don't seem to understand that.

[Keks]

Yes, well, than it'll be like I said; a new diff. in the online servers. Just can't have it all, don't know why people don't seem to understand that.

 

So basicly you dont understand why people who have no interest in doing carrier ops have an issue with having to buy a carrier DLC in order to be able to play with their friends?

 

You dont understand why splitting a, in comparison, small community forcefully into more and more smaller people based on their willingness to spend money on things that they dont even use is bad?

 

I mean even EA doesnt paywall maps anymore due to large games like battlefield running into issues by paywall splitting the community.

 

 

The easy solution, and that solution was given 123423 times allready would be server licencing. But forcing someone to spend money on something he wont ever use just so he can participate is a very bad move and will most likely result in a comercial failure due to overall lack of interest.

 

But I mean, the obvious solution would be a battle royale mode :megalol:

[shagrat]

It's really not two discussions. We're having one discussion about the technical aspect of this splitting the community, while somehow ED translators unlearnt to read and assume we don't want to give ED compensation for their work. Woosh....

I am speaking as a person, not because I sacrifice my spare time to give something back to this "nice" community.

I even play multiplayer most of the time. And I have the same rights to state my opinion as anybody else.

But hey, no problem, I'll wait and see. I'll buy it anyway, so no big issue for me in that regard... have a nice and productive discussion. :)

Cheers

[remi]

If you don't want to buy the module for single player, then don't.

 

If you don't want to buy the module for multiplayer, then don't.

 

If you don't have the module and want to play on a server that uses it, then buy the module.

 

If you don't have the module and you want to play on a server that uses it, then find a different server.

 

 

This is not difficult to understand.

 

 

In a year, most people who didn't want to buy it will probably have bought it, and the others will be happy in their own world.

[Wizard_03]

So basicly you dont understand why people who have no interest in doing carrier ops have an issue with having to buy a carrier DLC in order to be able to play with their friends?

 

You dont understand why splitting a, in comparison, small community forcefully into more and more smaller people based on their willingness to spend money on things that they dont even use is bad?

 

I mean even EA doesnt paywall maps anymore due to large games like battlefield running into issues by paywall splitting the community.

 

 

The easy solution, and that solution was given 123423 times allready would be server licencing. But forcing someone to spend money on something he wont ever use just so he can participate is a very bad move and will most likely result in a comercial failure due to overall lack of interest.

 

But I mean, the obvious solution would be a battle royale mode :megalol:

 

Many of us have a huge interest in carrier ops. Including our friends that play online.

[Wizard_03]

If you don't want to buy the module for single player, then don't.

 

If you don't want to buy the module for multiplayer, then don't.

 

If you don't have the module and want to play on a server that uses it, then buy the module.

 

If you don't have the module and you want to play on a server that uses it, then find a different server.

 

 

This is not difficult to understand.

 

 

In a year, most people who didn't want to buy it will probably have bought it, and the others will be happy in their own world.

 

This

[Keks]

Many of us have a huge interest in carrier ops. Including our friends that play online.

 

I dont see how this addresses anything that I said.

[Tippis]

What worrying message would that be according to you?

Not understanding how their own software works, nor communities, nor word of mouth, nor… well… economics — a rather important factor in sticking around.

 

I don’t buy things based on other people’s decisions, if I want it and they don’t then; tough I don’t get to play with them anymore.

You're still ignoring the fundamental implementation issue. It's not a matter of “buying based on other people's decisions” — it's a matter of their decisions making mine meaningless because of how this module is supposed to work. Nor is it a workable solution to make my decisions mandatory for them.

 

I can buy this module as much as I like — and I really would like to — but I would never be able to use it while actually flying any of the relevant aircraft in any meaningful way.

 

This is not difficult to understand.

It also completely misses the point. This is also not difficult to understand.

[dawgie79]

So basicly you dont understand why people who have no interest in doing carrier ops have an issue with having to buy a carrier DLC in order to be able to play with their friends?

 

You dont understand why splitting a, in comparison, small community forcefully into more and more smaller people based on their willingness to spend money on things that they dont even use is bad?

 

I mean even EA doesnt paywall maps anymore due to large games like battlefield running into issues by paywall splitting the community.

 

 

The easy solution, and that solution was given 123423 times allready would be server licencing. But forcing someone to spend money on something he wont ever use just so he can participate is a very bad move and will most likely result in a comercial failure due to overall lack of interest.

 

But I mean, the obvious solution would be a battle royale mode :megalol:

I'm not an idiot, thank you.

 

ED is not a multimillion dollar company like EA. EA sucks for that matter with their iterations every year. So no comparison in my opinion.

 

Besides, I do understand. But it'll solve itself. And who knows. Maybe ED changes its mind and will come up with a server license? They changed their minds about the TGP for the Hornet too, so maybe. I don't know. And I don't presume to know either. Talking bad about/towards ED and only complain most certainly won't help, I can tell you that.

[Keks]

I'm not an idiot, thank you.

 

ED is not a multimillion dollar company like EA. EA sucks for that matter with their iterations every year. So no comparison in my opinion.

 

Im just pointing out that even multimillion dollar companies like EA ran into issues pushing this too far.

[Tippis]

Besides, I do understand. But it'll solve itself.

How?

 

By what magical means will the game suddenly ignore a restriction on joining servers, thereby solving the problem of pointlessly and needlessly requiring servers not to use the module if they want to be able to host games for their communities?

[Sheriff BurneR]

Im still waiting for answer on my question... we will see new carrier in this year? and when?

[33-DFTC]

It could really help if ED would explain why there is a difference between the upcoming Carrier Ops module and the current modules.

 

I only own the Mirage and I can fly with any other aicraft currently available in the game. Also, I can join a server with Combined Arms slots. I do not need to buy each of the modules to interact with them or to ask a JTAC to lase a target for me. I really don't get why it would be any different with the Carrier Ops module.

 

Are some of the users in this thread suggesting we should buy all the aircrafts modules to have them on our game sessions ? Sure it could be the easiest way to support ED but does it make any sense really ?

[Tippis]

It could really help if ED would explain why there is a difference between the upcoming Carrier Ops module and the current modules.

Well, according to Wags, it's…

Of course, on the technical side, there will be so many network inconsistencies between module owners and non-owners of the carrier that it would cause havoc and look terrible (particuarly deck crew and the new comms), as such making it available to non-owners in MP makes no sense.

…which makes very little sense. If you don't own the module, you could simply not see the deck crew or use the new comms, and neither will cause any more havoc or look any more terrible than the taxiway takeoffs, ground crew collisions, AI aircraft (and runway) blockage, and ATC hiccups and state locks that we already see at every airport in MP. Hell, as someone suggested earlier, for all intents and purposes, it could just be treated as a static object for those who don't own the module.

 

If the ATC is so fragile that it breaks down if people don't use it — because they choose not to or because they haven't purchased it — then the solution is to make it more resilient, not to lock people out of not using it.

[MonnieRock]

Im still waiting for answer on my question... we will see new carrier in this year? and when?

 

Waiting as well

 

Question for EDSA

1) Will the animated deck crew will be as efficiently synchronized as clouds are in Multiplayer between clients?

2) Will the the improper dimensions of the Stennis modelling errors be corrected since this is the Carrier to use if not buying the Nimitz Class Module?

 

 

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

[Wizard_03]

I dont see how this addresses anything that I said.

 

Not understanding how their own software works, nor communities, nor word of mouth, nor… well… economics — a rather important factor in sticking around.

 

 

You're still ignoring the fundamental implementation issue. It's not a matter of “buying based on other people's decisions” — it's a matter of their decisions making mine meaningless because of how this module is supposed to work. Nor is it a workable solution to make my decisions mandatory for them.

 

I can buy this module as much as I like — and I really would like to — but I would never be able to use it while actually flying any of the relevant aircraft in any meaningful way.

 

 

It also completely misses the point. This is also not difficult to understand.

 

Alright I’ve had enough my arguments rest, I have nothing more to say.

[bell_rj]

Well, no matter what. It's obvious that a lot of clever people think there's an issue here so I hope ED take note and take stock before going ahead with the planned approach.

[dawgie79]

How?

 

By what magical means will the game suddenly ignore a restriction on joining servers, thereby solving the problem of pointlessly and needlessly requiring servers not to use the module if they want to be able to host games for their communities?

By being patient. Again we (including you) don't know how things ultimately will be implemented by ED.

[33-DFTC]

Well, according to Wags, it's…

 

…which makes very little sense. If you don't own the module, you could simply not see the deck crew or use the new comms, and neither will cause any more havoc or look any more terrible than the taxiway takeoffs, ground crew collisions, AI aircraft (and runway) blockage, and ATC hiccups and state locks that we already see at every airport in MP. Hell, as someone suggested earlier, for all intents and purposes, it could just be treated as a static object for those who don't own the module.

 

If the ATC is so fragile that it breaks down if people don't use it — because they choose not to or because they haven't purchased it — then the solution is to make it more resilient, not to lock people out of not using it.

 

Thank you, I missed that message from Wags. It makes little sense to me as well.

 

What I understand from this statement is that they're facing serious challenges with their own engine and that customers have to face a very tough choice to compensate their inability to fix the "network inconsistencies". Could this be the same reason we don't have consistent weather condition between clients too ?